4 ms·

I recommend RAW+JPEG. I hate editing RAW files, but in 30 years, I'll still have them and might have a use for them. In 300 years, my ancestors will have them.

by wegs 6y ago

I recommend RAW+JPEG. I hate editing RAW files, but in 30 years, I'll still have them and might have a use for them. In 300 years, my ancestors will have them. Seems like image processing algorithms might advance by then. I once reran my photos from the early '00s through a modern raw processor, and the difference was night-and-day. No tweaking, no nothing. Just modern versus ancient noise reduction, color algorithms, etc. Disk space is cheap enough.

brudgers 6y ago
I use the same non-destructive editor, Darktable, on my JPG originals as for RAW. Make non-destructive edits and export. My workflow is the same though JPG requires a less pixel pipeline during post processing. To put it another way the only difference is that my “archived negative” is a JPG rather than a RAW. But in 300 years I would only bet, and not very much, on physical prints. I’d give JPG a reasonable chance thirty years from now. Proprietary RAW files will probably be readily accessible in fifteen years for the most part. Most of what JPG does is free me from a “raw+jpg just in case.” I don’t think defensively like that anymore...I don’t burden myself with a lot of “a serious photographer would.” What I am making is a picture. There are tradeoffs and the actual pictures I make (not the ones I might possibly make) are how I think about cost and benefit. Disk space is cheap and so I use it write only. The time I spend on file management is expensive, so again write only. RAW + JPG requires much more file management than either alone. Should the JPG and RAW receive the same number of stars? The same tags? Always? I don’t want to spend time thinking about that. For me, RAW represents an obligation to future work. The picture is never done when it is made. Not ready upon download. JPG frees up energy for making more pictures. YMMV.

by wegs 6y ago

brudgers 6y ago

I use the same non-destructive editor, Darktable, on my JPG originals as for RAW. Make non-destructive edits and export. My workflow is the same though JPG requires a less pixel pipeline during post processing. To put it another way the only difference is that my “archived negative” is a JPG rather than a RAW. But in 300 years I would only bet, and not very much, on physical prints. I’d give JPG a reasonable chance thirty years from now. Proprietary RAW files will probably be readily accessible in fifteen years for the most part. Most of what JPG does is free me from a “raw+jpg just in case.” I don’t think defensively like that anymore...I don’t burden myself with a lot of “a serious photographer would.” What I am making is a picture. There are tradeoffs and the actual pictures I make (not the ones I might possibly make) are how I think about cost and benefit. Disk space is cheap and so I use it write only. The time I spend on file management is expensive, so again write only. RAW + JPG requires much more file management than either alone. Should the JPG and RAW receive the same number of stars? The same tags? Always? I don’t want to spend time thinking about that. For me, RAW represents an obligation to future work. The picture is never done when it is made. Not ready upon download. JPG frees up energy for making more pictures. YMMV.